WASHINGTON -- A bill to make firearms trafficking a federal crime gained more House Republican support on Wednesday, a sign that perhaps some kind of gun control legislation could actually move in the House.

The Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013 was already a bipartisan bill when it was introduced Tuesday. It had two Democratic and two Republican cosponsors. The measure would add a federal statute to give law enforcement the ability to prosecute gun traffickers and crack down on "straw purchasers," or people who sell guns to those who otherwise aren't allowed to buy them.

But by Wednesday, it had another six cosponsors, three of whom are Republicans: Reps. Peter King (N.Y.), Michael Fitzpatrick (Penn.) and Michael Grimm (N.Y.). The additional Democrats who signed on are Reps. John Conyers (Mich.), Danny Davis (Ill.) and Ron Barber (Ariz.).

"I have long supported efforts to crack down on illegal gun trafficking," King said in a statement. "I am proud to be a part of a bipartisan group of members offering a solution to this problem.”

1. So? What's in the bill that changes ANYTHING?!!!

2. 20 years in the pokey for straw purchases for one thing!

1) IN GENERAL.—Any person who violates
5 this section shall be fined under this title, impris6
oned for not more than 20 years, or both.
7 ‘‘(2) ORGANIZER ENHANCEMENT.—If a viola8
tion of subsection (a) is committed by a person in
9 concert with 5 or more other persons with respect to
10 whom such person occupies a position of organizer,
11 a supervisory position, or any other position of man12
agement, such person may be sentenced to an addi13
tional term of imprisonment of not more than 5 con14
secutive years.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/02/Gun-Trafficking-Prevention-Act-of-2013_xml.pdf

***

And so, on Aug. 28, Salley stood in a Chicago Loop apartment with the same two guns, one in each hand, blasting away at a team of Chicago police and FBI agents who had come to arrest him on an armed robbery charge, police say. Airhart, who was shot in the head, still was struggling for his life Saturday in a hospital.

The woman who bought the guns for Salley has not been charged, authorities said.

The so-called straw purchase of guns is "the most significant factor in gun trafficking, without any question," said Jack Killorin, director of the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms' Atlanta field division.

Sometimes, the real buyers walk into the gun store to help with the purchase. Other times, they may wait outside the door. A friend or accomplice with no criminal record easily can pass the federal Brady Act's required background check, then turn over the gun.

"That, in many ways, is the reality of ... getting a gun in Chicago," said David Hoffman, a local federal prosecutor.

Top penalty rarely given
Although the maximum federal penalty for participating in a straw purchase is a 10-year prison term, in practice sentencing guidelines call for only 2 to 2 1/2 years' imprisonment for someone caught providing as many as a dozen guns to a convicted felon. That's half the mandatory (5-year) minimum for possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine.

Straw purchases--the term derives from the expression "straw man," a person whose identity is used as a disguise--have been a factor in some of the most prominent local and national shooting tragedies.

The .357-caliber revolver used to kill Chicago Police Officer Michael Ceriale was bought by a South Side man who paid a cocaine debt to the Gangster Disciples by serving as a front for some of their gun purchases.

Two shotguns and a rifle used in the 1999 Columbine High School massacre were purchased by Dylan Klebold's 18-year-old girlfriend. Still 17, Klebold wasn't old enough to buy the weapons, but under state law it was legal for his girlfriend to not only buy the guns but also to give them to a minor.

In the Chicago area, someone with a clean record typically earns $50 to $100 per gun as a straw purchaser, according to local ATF agents and members of the Chicago Police Department's anti-gun enforcement unit.

Hard to convict `fronts'
Because of the nation's hodgepodge of state and federal gun laws, it's difficult to catch and convict people who act as fronts to buy weapons for felons. In essence, the authorities must prove the straw purchaser knew he or she was buying a gun for someone who couldn't pass the background check and deliberately flouted the laws.
http://www.federalobserver.com/archive.php?aid=319

3. 20 years in the pokey for straw purchases for one thing! My ass!

It's toothless BS that just allows the gutless politicians of both parties to claim they've done "something" about straw purchases and gun violence....... they haven't done JACK!

If you can't get legislation that is effective in convicting and putting away the perps, what good does an "increased penalty" do?!!!!

farminator, your post above sums it up quite nicely in this paragraph:

"Because of the nation's hodgepodge of state and federal gun laws, it's difficult to catch and convict people who act as fronts to buy weapons for felons. In essence, the authorities must prove the straw purchaser knew he or she was buying a gun for someone who couldn't pass the background check and deliberately flouted the laws."

This is what I've been saying all along and WHY we need 100% universal mandatory background checks for ALL firearms transactions NOW!!!!!

5. you do realize federal crimes are kinda more serious?

"Because of the nation's hodgepodge of state and federal gun laws, it's difficult to catch and convict people who act as fronts to buy weapons for felons. In essence, the authorities must prove the straw purchaser knew he or she was buying a gun for someone who couldn't pass the background check and deliberately flouted the laws."

If you can't get legislation that is effective in convicting and putting away the perps, what good does an "increased penalty" do?!!!!

this new one is that legislation you mention- it is about 20 years for straw purchases on the federal level and not letting certain states allow gun free for all buying.

This is what I've been saying all along and WHY we need 100% universal mandatory background checks for ALL firearms transactions NOW!!!!!

how does a BG check stop a straw purchase?

that S397 link, can you decipher that? if you can, you will 'get' why this new one is good.

6. S397 isn't the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013 that you were talking about

"this new one is that legislation you mention- it is about 20 years for straw purchases on the federal level and not letting certain states allow gun free for all buying."

Nope! Nothing in the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013 that would stop any such thing.

"how does a BG check stop a straw purchase?"

Herb derp!!!! Well, maybe by officially informing the seller that the buyer is not legally authorized to buy a firearm AND removing a "straw dealer's" excuse that he didn't know the buyer was prohibited from purchasing a firearm! Paper trail...... NO DENIAL!

8. no, s397 is another problem. are you saying that you understand it?

(B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller knows, or reasonably should know, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

the way things are now, you can't get busted or even sued for buying a gun for someone.
Nope! Nothing in the Gun Trafficking Prevention Act of 2013 that would stop any such thing.

looks like sec a # 1 does

a BG check does not-
Well, maybe by officially informing the seller that the buyer is not legally authorized to buy a firearm AND removing a "straw dealer's" excuse that he didn't know the buyer was prohibited from purchasing a firearm! Paper trail...... NO DENIAL!
Do you understand NOW?!!!

no. a straw buy is when someone who doesn't have a record buys a gun for someone who does. so a BG check has no meaning.

9. NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT.......

B) NEGLIGENT ENTRUSTMENT- As used in subparagraph (A)(ii), the term `negligent entrustment' means the supplying of a qualified product by a seller for use by another person when the seller KNOWS, or reasonably SHOULD KNOW, the person to whom the product is supplied is likely to, and does, use the product in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical injury to the person or others.

10. so whatcha got?

any good ideas?

you're a good law-writer?

The key to background checks is making sure the national database is complete, accurate and up-to-date, and making it a federal crime to buy guns on behalf of people who wouldn’t pass background checks on their own (aka gun trafficking).